Pic 10F200 and Timer0

Well Mike I'm going to give your's a try now Thanks all

Mike said:

Well... actually... your calculations are off. ...

Click to expand...

I didn't do any calculations, I used your calculations. My point is still equally valid, that the time delay could be padded with nops as needed IF accuracy to the exact cycle is needed (which it wasn't).

You seem very quick Mike to take an adversarial position and nitpick points to a fine degree. We're not writing a thesis here, we were (I believed) posting friendly informal tips, hence my use of words like "probably" in my post that you seemed intent on picking any possible fault with. Maybe you have a different opinion of what friendly and informal mean, or maybe you just need to argue in an adversarial fashion like you think we are having a fight or something? Do you have some personal issue with me? If so, please keep it to yourself as it is not relevant to the OP when you and I are posting informal friendly tips to a third person.

I posted a useful and simple 3 asm word solution to give "1mS" delay and a 4 asm word solution tunable to within approx 8 cycles. If you wish to post better solutions that's great, I could post better solutions too, but please do so without rudeness like the "Duh" and "credibility" jibes.

Mr RB I thank you for the post simple and sweet, And your right there not any need to nit-pick here Just getting ideas. I was thinking that chip had a flag on timer0 but I was wrong. Great help all

Mr RB,

I'm sorry you feel that being asked to back up a claim or assertion with evidence, proof, or accurate information is "nit-picking". I can only imagine your indignation when, for example, after producing a routine and proclaiming that it uses precisely 1000 cycles, someone points out that the routine actually uses 1002 cycles. I mean, really, can you believe the nerve of some people who expect you to post accurate credible thoughtful information instead of some quick n' lazy comment (lol)?

Seriously, even with my very limited experience, I felt your assertion, without qualifiers, didn't seem valid and that's why I challenged it. At that point you could have qualified your assertion or defended it with premises/evidence/proof. I would love to learn something new from examples or evidence based on your esoteric knowledge. Instead, you became defensive when it was pointed out that the examples (premises) you did supply didn't support your original assertion (conclusion). I'd still like to learn something new by studying examples that do support your original claim but I suspect you simply are unable or unwilling to devote the time necessary for a thoughtful reply at this time.

Happy Holidays and cheerful regards, Mike